The biggest disadvantage that Jeb Bush has isn’t his last name, but rather the relative quality of the Republican field he is facing.
That’s not to say that being George W. Bush’s little brother is an unalloyed positive for the former Florida governor. But as polls have shown, it is (no surprise) less of a problem for GOP primary voters than with the general electorate. Plus, Dubya is mellowing in the cask of public opinion, especially as President nObama flails about over Iraq.
The younger Bush obviously understands the liabilities involved with his family name and the basic American resistance to dynasties. Otherwise, he wouldn’t pick a logo that emphasizes a nickname that sounds as if it were ringing across the tennis courts at Andover.
But don’t let them kid you. If you wanted to be president and could choose whether to be the son and brother of presidents or be the son of a small-town preacher or a Miami bartender, you know what you’d pick. Bush was born on third base; everybody else had to hit a triple.
But still, as he launches his official candidacy, Bush is struggling to assert his dominance. Bush is probably a better establishment-backed candidate than either of the two after his brother, and both John McCain and Mitt Romney won by comfortable margins. Yet, this time seems different.
Part of it is technique. While Hilly Clinton has lowered the bar dramatically for forthrightness, accountability and probity, Bush’s decision to invoke his Right to Raise unlimited sums for six months before actually declaring hasn’t exactly set him up to run as the tribune of the people.
But the biggest part is that Bush is facing serious competition. In 2008, Romney had to keep other viable establishmentarians out of the field, particularly then-Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Once the field was set, Romney had only one real threat: then Texas Gov. Rick Perry. But Perry was a bust. Everything after was just delaying the inevitable.
This time, Bush has at least two rivals in Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wisc., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., whose talents and positions make them real alternatives. Remember, the way the previous two candidates put away the nomination: Mainstream Republicans blanched at the thought of nominating candidates seen, fairly or not, as one-dimensional, social issue grinds.
Neither Walker nor Rubio is that kind of candidate. If either makes it into the home stretch with Bush, the surge is more likely to come for the underdog rather than the current frontrunner. Unless Walker and Rubio succeed in destroying each other and leaving the way open for a riskier pick, Bush will not have the advantage of declaring his final foe electorally toxic.
Jeb Bush is a better candidate in many ways than Romney or McCain were. But unfortunately for him, his chief rivals are furlongs ahead of the 2008 and 2012 pack. -Fox News

Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists? (Bradford Thomas) ~ In a new Prager University video, Haroon Ullah, a senior State Department advisor and field researcher in South Asia and the Middle East, debunks the two most prominent explanations for why people are susceptible to terrorism: poverty and ignorance... Though the left continually points to lack of resources and education as the central cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, Ullah said after living in Pakistan he found those two rationales to be demonstrably false. In Pakistan, he explains, he found "something much different than I expected. Poverty had little to do with who became an extremist; lack of education even less." He found, instead, that many terrorists come from middle class families and have college educations. The draw to radicalism was not one of economic desperation or susceptibility due to a lack of education, it was a longing "for meaning and for order," a desire for "change" in "the old corrupt order," and a sense of "victimhood": http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/middle-east-expert-debunks-poverty-and-ignorance-excuse-radicalism
.
We have had losses because (1) nObama was elected on a promise to end the conflict in Iraq and (2) reelected by pulling out troops to the point that the remaining Iraqi troops—Shiites in the south—decided it wasn’t worth dying for their leaders. Can’t say I blame them, but dying at the hands of ninth century Islamic fanatics is the fate that threatens the entire Middle East, not just Iraq or what’s left of it.
This is how we lost the war in Vietnam. There was a time when Americans utterly destroyed their enemies on the battlefield. In the latter half of the last century, starting in Korea, we forgot how to do that and why that’s how wars are won.
In all candor, like a lot of Americans, I went back and forth about the Mideast conflicts. Looking back, I think George H.W. Bush showed remarkable insight when, after driving Iraq’s Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, he stopped at the border and came home. George W. had the notion he could somehow introduce democracy to the region. He couldn’t and it will likely never really occur there because Islam is the only law and it has kept the region ignorant, backward, and under the thumb of tyrants for centuries.
The Islamic State troops must be stopped at some point, but nObama is not the President who will do it. Whatever U.S. backed combat occurs will be just enough to present enough television news images to convince the gullible that progress is being made.
nObama arrived in office without any strategy and has spent the last six and a half years “muddling through” as the British say. He and the Democratic Party had only one goal; to win the elections. After that, they wanted to “fundamentally transform” the greatest nation on planet Earth. They have largely made a mess out of everything they touched from nObamaCare to Common Core.
There’s a reason why nObama will send more troops and that’s because every one of our allies has told him that, if the U.S. does not again assert its role of global leadership, they are not going to cooperate with him in a thousand different ways.
Our allies in the Mideast have told him they lack the military strength (and will) to conduct any kind of war with ISIS. The U.S. and much of the rest of the world cannot afford to sit by and let the enormous oil wealth and reserves of the Mideast come under the control of ISIS.
So, once again we read headlines about U.S. troops returning to the Mideast.
What that means is that the 2016 elections are more critical to the future of the nation than all previous ones.
I think Americans, liberals, conservatives and independents alike have had more than enough of President No Strategy. I think there are enough older Americans who remember and take pride in a nation that was unabashedly the world’s leader in the pursuit of peace and democracy. And I think that the thirty percent or so of brain-dead liberals are not sufficient to affect the outcome of a 2016 election devoted to restoring the nation’s economy and leadership.
It can be done. John F. Kennedy was on his way to doing so. Reagan did so. In 590 days from now, we can begin to do so again.
Comments